Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sanctuaries do serve a purpose although on the surface it appears they do not. Yet another overreaction to one incident same as the planned parenthood videos. I don't believe this will pass reducing law enforcement funding in these areas is a non starter not to mention a lack of community support.
I guess this is what passes as immigration policy.
You must not read the news much. Illegal aliens are responsible for hundreds, if not thousands of deaths in the US each and every year. This isn't about "one incident".
The only purpose sanctuary cities serve is to bolster support for Democrats. That's it. It's entirely and cravenly political.
This decision today by Democrats is straight up anti-American. If that's who you want to throw in with, fine. But, like your post, you'll be forced to lie about almost everything to maintain your party membership.
The vote was 54-45. 2 Democrats and 1 Republican broke with their party.
As I understand it there are 300-350 ( sources vary) sanctuary municipalities, some going back decades. And it's certainly not just so called liberal cities.
On the surface there seems no rational reason to continue funding these municipalities.
But are we really surprised? In my view, the rule of law/constitution is being ignored left and right on so many levels, it's pathetic. Will the voting public ever wake up to what's going on? Honest answer....no.
"The bill offered by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., would have cut off law enforcement grants — including money to hire police officers — to more than 300 cities, counties and states with sanctuary policies. The legislation also would have stripped them of community development block grants, which are used to provide housing to low-income and moderate-income families and to help communities recover from natural disasters." Senate Democrats block bill to strip federal funds from 'sanctuary cities'
A bill to have less police officers, make people homeless, and stop federal funding for disasters in American cities (now that's a republican bill.)
And the same destroy America attitude comes out with bills republicans block,
But are we really surprised? In my view, the rule of law/constitution is being ignored left and right on so many levels, it's pathetic. Will the voting public ever wake up to what's going on? Honest answer....no.
Sanctuary Should not exist, it is one of the few area I would agree with republicans.
In the elections section their is an interesting thread staring trump is actually getting more support from unions than Clinton for that exact reason, seems the unions are tired of playing second fiddle in the democrat party.
The democrats are worried that if sanctuary cities go away they would lose some of their voting block.
We have two pinheads in Pa for senators. I'm going to vote against both of them, one's a republican and one's a democrat. I call them the Blind Squirrels, they occasionally find an acorn and vote correctly on an issue. But they both clearly serve their own interests and their bosses and neither serves their constituents.
"The bill offered by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., would have cut off law enforcement grants — including money to hire police officers — to more than 300 cities, counties and states with sanctuary policies. The legislation also would have stripped them of community development block grants, which are used to provide housing to low-income and moderate-income families and to help communities recover from natural disasters." Senate Democrats block bill to strip federal funds from 'sanctuary cities'
A bill to have less police officers, make people homeless, and stop federal funding for disasters in American cities (now that's a republican bill.)
And the same destroy America attitude comes out with bills republicans block,
Stop the partisan nonsense. My OP wasn't to play "our team is better" which your post is obviously about. In my view there's much to be sick about from the actions of many politicians no matter if they have an R or D attached to their name.
The point of my OP was this is an issue about enforcing our existing rule of law. As for "less police officers" in the more than "300 cities" who decide to play "let's ignore the rule of law at the fed and state level and local level", those cities wouldn't have to worry about getting such funding cut and this type of legislation wouldn't have to be proposed if cities followed the rule of law in the 1st place.
And given you seem to believe you are a "compassionate" person, may I suggest you state the views you have posted to the parents of Kathryn Steinle and explain your high moral "compassionate" ground of why sanctuary cities are ok and maybe, just maybe, see another side of reality of how their tragedy feels.
And then you can come over to the Phoenix area and talk to the mom of this police officer who was killed by a convicted criminal illegal alien driving drunk about your thoughts on the issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
